PDA

View Full Version : For those 18-200VR and D200 people



K1W1
01-06-2006, 02:43 PM
http://www.dpexpert.com.au/gallery/albums.php

http://www.dpexpert.com.au/

D70FAN
01-06-2006, 03:32 PM
Thanks K1W1. It's kind of odd that the 18-200 does a decent job at portraits (as is shown in the dexpert gallery), and seems to do so poorly on landscapes (Jeffs preview shots). I wonder if this may be due to manufacturing variation (i.e. Jeff got a slightly out of tune lens)? So the jury is still out.

I have seen some in-person D200 16 x 20 prints, using a 50mm f/1.8, and a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and they are stunning. Night and day from Jeffs experience with the 18-200 VR.

Since neither the lens or camera are low cost, I plan to check both out in person as soon as they are available in camera stores (probably around June). No big rush as the D70 is working just fine.;)

Jason25
01-06-2006, 04:50 PM
I keep reading so many different things about this lens. I keep going back and forth between getting the 18-70 and a 70-300 or the 18-200. Many over on DPR seem to find the 18-200 pretty much on par with the 18-70. I need to choose before going to Mexico though! :)

coldrain
01-06-2006, 06:34 PM
I keep reading so many different things about this lens. I keep going back and forth between getting the 18-70 and a 70-300 or the 18-200. Many over on DPR seem to find the 18-200 pretty much on par with the 18-70. I need to choose before going to Mexico though! :)
Mexico = great landscapes, isn't it? I'd choose maybe a wide zoom (Tokina 12-24 f4? sharp, good colours and contrast, around 460$ at b&h), Nikon AF Nikkor 70-210mm f/4-5.6D (cheap, light (nice for traveling), surprisingly good!) and something to fill the gap in between those two like the 18-55 Nikon kit lens (not a bad lens, and very good contrast, lifting photos up nicely) or something more expensive and light sensitive like a Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 EX DG or Tamron f2.8 28-75 SP Di.

A very different setup, but maybe worth it with a very good wide zoom, quality "standard" zoom and light (for traveling), good and affordable tele zoom.

Jason25
01-07-2006, 11:09 AM
That sounds like an interesting setup! Not a bad idea :) I've already been looking at ultra wides, namely the Sigma 10-20 and the Tokina 12-24. The Sigma may be wider and more lightweight, but the Tokina is supposed to be 98% as good as the 12-24 Nikkor.

Payne
01-07-2006, 11:09 AM
I keep reading so many different things about this lens. I keep going back and forth between getting the 18-70 and a 70-300 or the 18-200. Many over on DPR seem to find the 18-200 pretty much on par with the 18-70. I need to choose before going to Mexico though! :)

I've already place my ordered for the 18-200VR - I hope to get the lens on tuesday and I'll be posting a brief resolution test on the Dpreview forum - but as far as I know this lens is as good as the 28-200G (probably a bit better) - the 28-200G is a very cheap lens which resolution match the nikon prime 50mm f1.8D at f5.6, so I have a good feeling on the 18-200VR.

If you wanna a longer zoom - the best cheap option for the D50 is the nikon 70-300ED - even over the Sigma 70-300APO - I've tried both and believe me, the nikon lens is sharper at long end than the sigma lens, although both are sotf.

Another option is the old nikon 300mm f4 AF (non S) since the S version is quite expensive.

coldrain
01-07-2006, 11:19 AM
That sounds like an interesting setup! Not a bad idea :) I've already been looking at ultra wides, namely the Sigma 10-20 and the Tokina 12-24. The Sigma may be wider and more lightweight, but the Tokina is supposed to be 98% as good as the 12-24 Nikkor.
Some say the Tokina is the better of the two.

D70FAN
01-07-2006, 04:43 PM
I keep reading so many different things about this lens. I keep going back and forth between getting the 18-70 and a 70-300 or the 18-200. Many over on DPR seem to find the 18-200 pretty much on par with the 18-70. I need to choose before going to Mexico though! :)

I think you should give the Sigma 18-125 DC a try. I am constantly amazed at the overall performance of this lens.

Examples Most are shot with the Sigma (check the EXIF info):

http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

coldrain
01-07-2006, 06:05 PM
Thanks K1W1. It's kind of odd that the 18-200 does a decent job at portraits (as is shown in the dexpert gallery), and seems to do so poorly on landscapes (Jeffs preview shots). I wonder if this may be due to manufacturing variation (i.e. Jeff got a slightly out of tune lens)? So the jury is still out.

I have seen some in-person D200 16 x 20 prints, using a 50mm f/1.8, and a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and they are stunning. Night and day from Jeffs experience with the 18-200 VR.

Since neither the lens or camera are low cost, I plan to check both out in person as soon as they are available in camera stores (probably around June). No big rush as the D70 is working just fine.;)
Well George, besides a possible not optimal sample, the portraits do not use the wide end. The lens may vary quite a bit in different focal lenghts. Also, we were disappointed with seeing the FULL size photos Jeff posted, these samples above show downsized versions. That is 10 megapixels comparing to 1mp... of course we can not compare that.

So, we will just have to wait to see more full resolution wide angle photos from a 18-200VR.

But I think it may just be it does not perform very good at 18mm, because of the softness we see towards the edges/corners, and the accompanying CA. In the center of the photo the buildings look sharp...

EdMichaels
09-06-2006, 08:25 PM
That sounds like an interesting setup! Not a bad idea :) I've already been looking at ultra wides, namely the Sigma 10-20 and the Tokina 12-24. The Sigma may be wider and more lightweight, but the Tokina is supposed to be 98% as good as the 12-24 Nikkor. I originally registered hear just to reply to this thread. I am and have been a Nikon shooter since my dad loaned me his Nikon F Photomic 40 years ago. I shoot as part of my full time job at www.waldmanpi.com.
12-24 Experience:
I have tried 3 examples of the 12-24G AFS Nikkor and purchased the Tokina instead ...if sharpness and tough build counts the Tokina ATX DX wins. Who cares about AFS at these focal lengths and the Tokina is the fastest focusing of the non-Nikon super wide zooms. The Signa HSM speed and build just doesn't cut it. The Tamron is too limited in all ways.
18-125DC Sigma Versus 18-200VR AFS
Nikon:
The Nikon goes back to nycv.com tomorrow. The Sigma, I have owned for 2 years and is optically amazing. Below 85mm it almost rivals my 17-55/2.8G AGS Nikkor:), although I can outshoot my D200's sensor with the 17-55 wide open. I can not stand behind any pf the currently available 70-300s, however when I need the reach and not my 70-200/2.8G VR AFS speed or weiht, I carry a 70-210/4-5.6AFD with HN24 Hood.
With the Sigma 18-125, Nikon 70-210 and my Nikon 105/2.8G VRII AFS, I gave a neat 62mm filter size kit and in a pinch the 105 is my 2.8 fast telephoto.

Ed Michaels
609-617-7766

coldrain
09-07-2006, 08:45 AM
Ed Michaels, you are the 2nd person on here that is very impressed with the Sigma 18-125. George Riehm is always very positive about that lens too. I sometimes wonder if I should have gone for that one instead of my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC a year ago.

jcon
09-07-2006, 11:28 AM
Ed Michaels, you are the 2nd person on here that is very impressed with the Sigma 18-125. George Riehm is always very positive about that lens too....

Hey! Hes the 3rd person, CR. LOL :p

EdMichaels
09-07-2006, 08:47 PM
Ed Michaels, you are the 2nd person on here that is very impressed with the Sigma 18-125. George Riehm is always very positive about that lens too. I sometimes wonder if I should have gone for that one instead of my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC a year ago.
I am glad I am not alone in my respect for the 18-125 Sigma.

I have 2, 1 I paid 280.00 for in January of 05 and 1 I just bought at a "we need cash sale" from a small camera store in my wifes home town, Millville, NJ. It was an impulse and I will sell it if someone "needs" it.

Big-H
09-13-2006, 02:19 PM
All I can say is I was very disappointed by it...poor definition at 18mm, serious vignetting and distortion problems. However excellent by around f=35 and superb for portraits.
I then had a Sigma 18-200 which was vastly superior - less distortion, much sharper especially at wide angle, and performed brilliantly at telephoto.

I now have the Nikon 18-200 VR, and that beats the lot anyway, with the VR enabling exposures down to 1/4 sec at f=18 mm... :)

Just wish it focused much closer!

Howard

jcon
09-13-2006, 04:36 PM
Are you sure you didnt have a bad copy?

Big-H
09-18-2006, 09:56 AM
Are you sure you didnt have a bad copy?
Well, maybe I did, who knows? you could say that about any lens! It's long out of warranty now though. Compared to the Nikon 18-70 and 18-200 it was an easy decision to make.
And the VR has saved so many shots - down to even 1/4s at the 18mm setting, which I could never have done on the Sigma. Incidentally, in a situation where you couldn't use tripods or flash!

Howard